The City of Portland and a group of volunteer stakeholders are hard at work developing a “concept plan” for the Sullivan’s Gulch corridor project (they call it a “trail” but I prefer to avoid that term unless we’re discussing an off-road trail). While this is just the first step in what is likely to be a long process (unless a very powerful person steps up and makes it happen sooner… anyone?!), for fans of this project (and there are many), it’s exciting to see how things are shaping up (sorry for all the parentheses).

Last night, a planner with PBOT shared an update and the first visualizations of what the final facility might actually look like. Here’s how they envision the segment near the Hollywood Transit Center…

With the path being close to the busy I-84 freeway, many people have brought up concerns about air quality. When asked about that last night, Smith said they estimate it’ll be similar to the I-205 multi-use path. To get a better read on it, the City is looking for someone to do an air quality analysis.

Unlike the I-205 path, the Sullivan’s Gulch won’t have to cross surface streets. Smith says they’ve been able to route the path under all 19 of the streets it crosses. In a major coup, PBOT has gotten an O.K. from ODOT to route the path under I-205 and connect it directly to the existing I-205 path.

Of course, for the City to pull off this project, they’ll eventually have to acquire right-of-way from the Union Pacific Railroad company. At last night’s meeting, Smith said UPRR owns 64% of the property the path would go through (compared to 26% owned by PBOT). Whether or note UPRR is willing to sell (or give away) that property remains to be seen. The good news is, UPRR and PBOT have already sat down to discuss this project several times.

Are they willing to give up the property? “We haven’t asked,” says Smith, “We’re not at that point in the process yet.”

And for those of you salivating that bike traffic will get its own, I-84-like freeway with this project, stakeholder advisory committee member Heather McCarey shared last night that Sullivan’s Gulch, “Is not intended as a bike freeway… We want this to be for everybody, not just a freeway for cyclists.”

NOTE: At BikePortland, we love your comments. We love them so much that we devote many hours every week to read them and make sure they are productive, inclusive, and supportive (heck, sometimes we even fix your typos!). That doesn't mean you can't disagree with someone. It means you must do it with tact and respect. This is our business and we do not tolerate mean commenters who add nothing of value to the discussion.

Unfortunately, we are not robots and we don't always catch everything. You can help by notifying us if you see inappropriate comments. Thanks! — Jonathan and Michael

I’d like to see the last stretch between NE 12th and the Esplanade on a two-way bikes only Holladay Street with an easy connection to the “soon to be built” 7th Avenue Bridge and to the Esplanade and “soon to be built” north Portland Willamette Greenway Trail at the Rose Quarter.

Back when I was in high school, I would bike from the NE max station (second picture) to Benson (near first picture). Every once and a while, I would ditch the surface streets and bike the gravel next to the railroad tracks. Not necessarily the safest thing, but it sure did cut down on my commute.

That’s not how PBOT planner Paul Smith made it sound last night: From my notes…he said, “For the trail to happen, the city would acquire the outer 25 feet [from the rail line I assume]… That would have to occur for the trail to be built.” sounds like he’s saying the city wouldn’t do it with an easement alone and wants ownership instead.

Yes. Trees can help mitigate the air quality issues in Sullivan Gulch. Much of the Gulch’s south-facing slope is choked with blackberries and presents a great re-vegetation opportunity that can improve esthetics, air quality not to mention water quality and bird habitat.

“In a major coup, PBOT has gotten an O.K. from ODOT to route the path under I-205 and connect it directly to the existing I-205 path.”

This is great! Currently, there is no good east-west route for 2.5 miles north of Burnside, until Sandy, and even those busy streets only have bike lanes. Glisan, Halsey and Prescott have narrow sidewalks and no bike lane. There is no bike boulevard alternative.

It will be great to have a traffic-free east-west route between Inner and Outer Northeast. Can we build this connection early?

As part of the project, we also need a connection to outer northeast that is south of 84, from the 205 path. Either there needs to be a new bike/pedestrian bridge from the 205 path over 84, or we need a good bike lane or cycletracks on Halsey over the freeway.

You’re forgetting NE Knott. I find it a great thoroughfare for my bike commute. Though I used to use Prescott as well (I live just off Prescott) I now use Going if I head that far north before heading East-West. Prescott isn’t comfortably wide enough until east of 42nd Ave.

First off, I’m a total fan of the Sullivan Gulch route and hope it gets built ASAP, obstacles not withstanding.

I like Joseph E’s thought of building the cross-I-205 connection first. The ROW is secured and there are no major obstacles beyond cut-and-fill grading and retaining walls. It would provide a much-needed alternative to the Halsey speedway. (Streetviews even shows a bike route salmoning up the sidewalk. Sheesh!) But the connections on both ends are tough. The west end of that segment still leaves bikes in difficult territory. (N on 92nd to Schuyler looks like the least worst option to me?) The east end connects to the I-205 MUP out in the Gateway Green boonies with the nearest street connections about a mile to the north at Maywood, and half-mile to the south at Gateway Transit Center. That’s a big improvement, to be sure, but it’s only part of a bigger bikeway system needed for outer NE.

Air quality is a big issue, but it improves rapidly with distance. Even 50 feet from a six-lane highway is probably better air quality than three feet from stop and go traffic, while riding a bike lane on Williams, for example.

Another plus – the path would be used more in the summer, when the wind is frequently from the north – and most rarely from the south.

This is really exciting. Can’t wait for an new route (sans stop signs, etc.) to get home! Much rather see energy put into this kind of project then the entitled hullabaloo over a negotiable pole on the Broadway bridge.

Why wouldn’t Union Pacific want to give it up? They’re doing major ad campaigns right now, and I can guarantee they’d want real life shots of their trains rolling along with bicycle commuters instead of CGI composites of trees lifting cargo onto flatcars. I’d ride the thing every day if for no other reason as to be a visual reminder to ever motorist inching along 84 that there’s a lane moving way faster than they are.

Liability is a major concern for them. With the current configuration, if a train derails, there will be no innocent bystanders squashed. With a pathway at close proximity, there may be injuries or deaths that the company will be responsible for. They will not give up this space for nothing.

Trains derailing is extremely rare, and the liability is no greater than for any point where tracks cross roads, which is everywhere. This isn’t a situation where U.P. is holding something hostage, we’re talking about a strip of land 15 feet wide that could be repurposed for greater transportation use. That’s something Union Pacific would be wise to be a part of.

See the stream from February 3rd. The students found a noticeable difference in particulate matter pollution when you locate the MUP on the freeway side of a sound barrier, and on the neighborhood side.

Based on this evidence, the designers should consider integrating a sound barrier on the freeway side of the path.

Railroads including UPRR have a long standing reputation of not working with other agencies, municipalities or organizations. Their property makes up much of their wealth and they are not in the business of giving it away. The PR campaigns are directed at stock investors, not the general public and they have not shown interest in being popular with the general public. Don’t plan trips on this route just yet.

UPRR has no reason whatsoever to budge on this one, despite our hopeful imaginings. They are able to remain pretty much indifferent to any of the kinds of carrot or stick that the Portland region or the State of Oregon can muster. City may throw money, then more money, then a lot more money at UPRR; UPRR may choose to play ball somewhere down the line but it will be at a time and a price of its own choosing.

One would hope that there is something else at work here, that this project will not be a ten year black hole . . .

UPRR has the neighbors in both Westmoreland and Eastmoreland as commited adversaries. These upper middle class residential neighborhoods resent the noise. Also, the Portland/Milwaukie light rail runs through that corridor taking up RR space, which UPRR already gave up.

Lower picture showing the long view: I’d be looking to site the MUP on the brow of the ravine, putting the MUP farther away from track and freeway, and higher above them. This would get people using this route further away from noise, pollution, and allow them them a better view(sound walls are a mixed blessing.). Being on the same level with adjacent business and workplaces would make it naturally easy to divert off the route to go to those places to work and to buy things.

Of course, that location would probably be on private property, necessitating a more complicated process of arranging agreements with property owners to build it there. Probably more money too.

Might be a good idea to keep the railroads property open for rail expansion.

I see the attractions of riding higher up the side of the gulch, and one you didn’t mention is more sunlight. However that would also mean more grade changes as the MUP ducked under all the various streets it crosses, and those hills mean more effort for riders and greater speed differentials, resulting in clumpy traffic flow.

As far as access to adjacent businesses, that will happen at the business’ front door on the street side. Businesses don’t want a security risk of a public back door.

“…However that would also mean more grade changes as the MUP ducked under all the various streets it crosses, …” Alan 1.0

That’s true, and building it that way would probably be more difficult, and more expensive. It would require somewhat more exertion to ride, but that might not be a bad thing.

Eastbound, the Sunset MUP involves quite a climb, but I wouldn’t consider it arduous, even for someone that just rides occasionally. The Sunset MUP’s inherent potential for hazard is downhill, which…and I kind of don’t like saying this…for long stretches can, if the person riding chooses…be terrifically fast.

People in the form of opposing direction traffic really have to watch out for each other, which is more difficult than one might think without having ridden this MUP. Most people seem to take it easy on the descent, but occasionally, someone will open it up, similar to people in their cars on the freeway, to see what it’ll do.

I’ll just guess…hope…that grades on the Sullivan’s Gulch MUP for a route that would rise for greater distance and elevation, and fall to go under the overpasses, could be made gradual enough to be enjoyable and safe to ride.

Riding almost directly across from the monotonous, stressful roar of Banfield traffic is not going to be fun times.

I think this trail will be practical, but no terribly fun. If you’ve biked out to beaverton on the trail next to the highway… it works, It’s not pretty. It’s nice to not have to deal with fog lines, traffic and stop signs. But it will have a cost.

I was thrilled when they finally built the path next to the Sunset, and I ride it often. No the section outside the freeway wall isn’t quiet and pleasant, but it gets me home FAR faster than any other route except Beaverton-Hillsdale (which is far less safe, and somewhat less pleasant to boot).

The Sunset MUP isn’t bad. And notice that unlike the Sullivan’s Gulch MUP as planned so far, Sunset MUP is sited up above and away from freeway traffic.

Since I posted the comment yesterday, it did occur to me though, that Sullivan’s Gulch MUP has the challenge of cross streets to deal with. This referred to in the story:

“…Unlike the I-205 path, the Sullivan’s Gulch won’t have to cross surface streets. Smith says they’ve been able to route the path under all 19 of the streets it crosses. …” maus/bikeportland

In his comment from yesterday, Ted Buehler’s also noted and responded to this issue of the MUP’s siting.

I’d still be thinking of siting the MUP as high and far away from the freeway as possible, if it could be done by employing some gently ascending and descending rollers to duck under the cross street overpasses.

Every time I visit Portland (I live in Sacramento, Ca but used to live in PDX) I ride NE/SE side of town, and wish there was a good East/west route to bike. This trail would be ideal. PS, I used to ride my motorcycle next to the RR tracks in the early 70’s, getting on near 28th, (next to the then Hyster lift truck Factory) and ride to the Rocky butte gravel pit and ride all day, next to the since demolished Jail (when 205 was built). My, how times have changed…..

Still trying to figure out why the city likes MUP’s so much. I just hope there’s a ban on organized walks along this thing. I don’t care if it’s next to a freeway, and ”no one wants to walk next to a freeway”, I can’t go by hunches. If anyone here rides the Springwater on weekends in the summertime, they know what i’m talking about..